Kenneth M. Karas
How Judge Karas rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Karas
Kenneth M. Karas is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Karas received a commission on June 13, 2004.
Judge Karas's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Karas, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Civil Case Management and Scheduling Order ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice for Sentencing ↗
- Procedures for Default Judgment ↗
Key rules
Motions
Non-discovery civil motions generally require a pre-motion conference, subject to the listed exceptions.
“For motions other than discovery motions, a pre-motion conference with the Court is required for making any motion, except motions brought on by Order To Show Cause, motions by incarcerated pro se litigants, motions for admission pro hac vice, motions for reargument, motions for class certification, and motions described in Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 4(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
Motions
In a fully counseled case, a pre-motion letter for dismissal in lieu of answer stays the answer deadline until further order.
“For motions to dismiss in lieu of an answer in fully counseled cases, the movant must send a pre-motion letter to the nonmovant, copy the Court, and file it on the docket. The letter shall include each specific argument and relevant case law supporting the movant’s position as to why the complaint may fail or partially fail as a matter of law. The filing of such a letter stays the time to answer or move until further order of the Court. Within seven days, the nonmovant”
Conferences
Absent an emergency, file adjournment or extension requests as ECF letter-motions at least five business days before the appearance.
“C. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. Absent an emergency, requests for adjournments or extensions of time shall be made at least five business days prior to the scheduled appearance. All requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be made in writing and filed on ECF as letter-motions. (If a request contains sensitive or confidential”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
- Amended Standing Order on Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Second Amended Standing Order on Civil Case Opening ↗
- Amended Standing Order on Miscellaneous Civil Case Opening ↗
- Standing Order on Applications to File a Civil Case Under Seal ↗
- Standing Order on Emergency Relief and Section 2255 Filing Procedures ↗
- Notice on Immigration Custody Habeas Petitions and Emergency Relief ↗
How Judge Karas decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In American Automobile Insurance, he granted an alarm company's Rule 12(b)(6) motion based on exculpatory clauses in its contract with the insured restaurant.
“Now pending is Rest Assured's motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on the exculpatory clauses contained in the contract between Rest Assured and Brass Anchor. (Dkt. No. 23.) The motion is granted.”
In Bridge Metal’s coverage dispute, Karas held that the policy’s advertising injury provision required Travelers to defend two underlying suits and granted the insureds’ summary judgment motion.
“For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' motion is granted and Defendant's motion is denied.”
In Morabito’s jail medical-care case, Karas held that allegations of a blanket denial of medication-assisted treatment and similar denials to other detainees were enough to plead a policy claim at the dismissal stage.
“Indeed, the foregoing recitation of Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrates that he has alleged facts sufficient to support a Monell claim.”
Procedural preferences
In one multi-defendant civil-rights case, he resolved dismissal and summary-judgment motions in the same opinion, applying the relevant standard to each motion.
“Orange County, DSS, and Middletown have moved to dismiss. The Middletown Officers have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, Orange County's and DSS's motion to dismiss is granted; Middletown's motion to dismiss is granted in part; and the Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
In a pro se bankruptcy appeal with no timely opening brief, Karas considered the appellee’s dismissal motion but chose to treat the appellants’ opposition as their appeal argument and decide the underlying issues. Counsel seeking dismissal for briefing default should address prejudice and the merits as well as the missed deadline.
“The Court concludes that a lesser sanction than dismissing on timeliness grounds is warranted here.”
In one reconsideration decision involving a pro se complaint, Karas directed newly raised facts into an amended pleading while denying the request to revisit his earlier ruling.
“allegations she raises here can and should be raised in an amended complaint.”
In one prisoner civil-rights case, Karas allowed a second amended complaint within 30 days because his dismissal of the first amended complaint was the first merits adjudication of those claims.
“because this is the first adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims on the merits, the dismissal is without prejudice, and Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Opinion and Order.”
Cautions
In In re Dayton, Karas denied the police officers’ early summary judgment motion without prejudice. The parties had not completed discovery, and he declined to resolve competing witness accounts on the existing record.
“The Parties here have not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery. Any factual inconsistencies in Plaintiffs' allegations, including those identified here by the Middletown Officers, can properly be resolved after both sides have had an opportunity to fully investigate the underlying facts of the case.”
In one dispute over a forum-selection clause, he found a breach but denied a request to recover attorney fees as contract damages. A party seeking fees for filing in the wrong forum should identify an independent basis for that remedy.
“SAS’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED except to the extent SAS claims to be entitled to attorneys’ fees; with respect to SAS’s claim for attorneys’ fees as contract damages, SAS’s motion is DENIED.”
In one failure-to-promote case, the plaintiff’s own view of her qualifications did not create a factual dispute about whether the employer’s stated reason was pretextual, and summary judgment was granted for the employer.
“Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated self- assessment does not create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of pretext.”
In one excessive-force suit, body-camera footage resolved the initial pat-down claim, but competing accounts and inconclusive footage of the later arrest prevented summary judgment and qualified immunity on that part of the claim.
“In the face of Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ competing narratives and the inconclusive nature of Defendants’ proffered evidence, the Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, that Marsh and Ragni’s use of force was objectively reasonable.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In light of the foregoing analysis, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.”
“Now pending is Rest Assured's motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on the exculpatory clauses contained in the contract between Rest Assured and Brass Anchor. (Dkt. No. 23.) The motion is granted.”
“Before the Court are the Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”
“The motion to dismiss DSS is granted with prejudice. Middletown's and Orange County's motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' federal § 1983 claims under Monell are granted without prejudice ... Defendants' motions to dismiss claims arising from the Family Court finding of neglect and order of protection under Rooker-Feldman are granted with prejudice, but denied as to Plaintiffs' other allegations regarding Orange County's conduct during the Family Court proceedings.”
“Orange County's and DSS's motion to dismiss is granted; Middletown's motion to dismiss is granted in part; and the Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Accordingly, the Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice.”
“Defendant has moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, in turn, have cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' motion is granted and Defendant's motion is denied.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' motion is granted and Defendant's motion is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.”
“For the reasons given herein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied in part and granted in part without prejudice. Plaintiffs have thirty days to file a Second Amended Complaint, consistent with this Opinion.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs motion is denied, and judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant.”
“SAS’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED except to the extent SAS claims to be entitled to attorneys’ fees; with respect to SAS’s claim for attorneys’ fees as contract damages, SAS’s motion is DENIED.”
“Versatile’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED except to the extent SAS seeks attorneys’ fees.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The visible docket slice is current and 2026-heavy and reflects current assignments at the White Plains courthouse, not a tenure-wide caseload. No terminated dockets appeared on the page, so no case durations were computed.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 32 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 32 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 37 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 39 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 35 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 29 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 28 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 30 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 28 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 37 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 38 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 37 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 28 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, not for Judge Karas: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 9,565 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,749 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,416 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,313 | 14.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 87 | 51.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 9,565 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 10,695 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 10,316 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 11,818 | 6.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 10,662 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 10,118 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 11,357 | 6.6 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Karas with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Karas, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Karas's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace